Wednesday, December 2, 2015

1) The idea that has been doing the rounds in the London media that Hilary Benn is a credible caretaker "unity" Labour leader is now dead in the water. Becoming so visibly the darling of the Tory benches has completely put paid to any hopes he may have harboured in that direction.

2) Sustained clapping in the House of Commons is, it turns out, perfectly OK and will not be ruled out of order by the Speaker, just so long as it's not the Jocks doing it and as long as it's expressing support for the dropping of British bombs on a faraway country. (We already know from a previous episode that clapping is to be positively encouraged as long as it follows a speech in favour of John Bercow remaining as Speaker.)

3) The Westminster elite are quite capable of getting over the solemnity of having just voted to end people's lives. It only takes a matter of seconds for them to start chortling at the ludicrous thought of being expected to hang around for a late night debate about child abuse.

4) Labour's Stella Creasy was either pro-fascism or fascism-neutral until roughly 9.30 this evening. Or at least she was if we believe her fatuous statement that "Hilary Benn's speech persuaded me that fascism must be defeated".

95 comments:

Probably the most telling part of the whole debate was the tories and odious Blairites clapping like seals and in raptures for Benn's cut and paste Blair impersonation. (which the Sainted Tony might well have had a hand in draughting ;-) )

Obviously, short of jumping on the green benches and hooting and shrieking like monkeys directly at Corbyn, it was the tories and red tory Blairites stunningly unsubtle way of telling the 'terrorist sympathiser' to fuck off and stop bothering them with all this left wing claptrap.

They're in this for the money not some ludicrous outmoded stuff like beliefs or principles and you can tell just how irritated they get when anyone challenges their low IQ sub Daily Mail mindset.

But mostly they were beside themselves with glee because Hameron's second rate Blair impersonation has been utter shit for a long, LONG time and this was more like it! LOL Hilarious and tragic.

Benn's speech was just the usual Blairite misdirection, vapid platitudes and spectacular missing of the point as you would expect, but these fools are so woefully short of an original thought or idea they lapped it up with gusto.

Point is Blair could have easily made that speech but there's a reason he can't any more without almost all of the public thinking LIAR!

When Hameron's stupid party and the odious Blairites work out why that is they might well begin to start worrying about Hammond rather pointedly moving the goalposts to prepare the way for ground troops.

Nah the best description of Hameron is Gormless Oink that I have seen and todays debate brings Independence ever closer which is sadly a horrible way of achieving that aim on the backs of innocents around the world, but so be it.

I'm inclined to think that (to use James prescription) what we've learned today has to include the lengths the establishment and the tories will go to to try and destabilise the other westminster parties and try to shape them into good little boys and girls who will do as they are told.

Now, that's not to say it will be successful since we all remember how the tories and westminster establishment hooted with glee at the prospect of the 'unstoppable' Eggman Murphy. :D

However, when it comes to Clegg's ostrich faction and the current Corbyn shambles it's not as if they actually want a coherent or competent opposition. Nor could they possibly afford to see one appear considering just how little the nasty party are trusted as well as their manifest incompetence in so many areas of policy.

But there is no denying that this is stunningly unsubtle stuff with Clegg cutting off the balls of the feeble Farron on live TV while tories shriek with delight at a bog-standard Blairite speech in favour of bombing a country into stability and peace. (because it's been SO successful every other time they tried it)

The consequences aren't just what happens next as the carnage continues, but of course next year it's the tories turn to be on the receiving end and no amount of plotting from inside the chumocracy can prevent it.

They cannot possibly hope to run a referendum in support of the EU and EU immigration policies with some 70% of their members opposed and expect that to end up in anything other than the kind of utter chaos Labour are currently in.

Particularly when everyone knows Hameron won't be there for that much longer and some of the leadership hopefuls in the tory party start competing for who is the most convincing OUT candidate. (Think GOP Circus and the Trumpening to envision just how funny and chaotic the stupid party will be then)

So by May we will have very likely have all three of the Westminster bubble parties wracked by internal chaos and lashing out wildly at each other as they struggle to understand why their core vote, turnout and basic levels of TRUST in them keeps dropping.

whatever the reason for mr hilary benn's speech – maybe there are patricidal Freudian undertones, maybe he wants the title Lord Stansgate that his father renounced or some other title, maybe he wants to be a great statesman, maybe the Tories made an offer he couldn’t refuse – whatever . . . .He appeared as the quintessential upper class, ruling class Englishman who cannot /will not understand the non-English point of view of other inhabitants of this UK.

Tony Benn, an 'imperialist animal'? Long-time reader, first-time commenter. That statement is so moronic I was compelled to comment. Tony Benn was the foremost British anti-imperialist of the last few decades, so let's not allow differing views on Scottish independence to permit to churning of absolute guff. Scottish Labour is indeed woeful, but that actually doesn't mean that the entire concept of a British Labour party or of British Unionism (with which I disagree) is automatically deserving of abuse.

Best speech I have heard in the Commons since Winston Churchill told an appeaser to just go. Hillary Benn was excellent and I was surprised. Thought he would be his fathers son. Well done Hillary and down with fascism and the lefties that support fascism. Jock Nats should be ashamed. No doubt when the mass graves are excavated the Nats will have their excuses prepared. They are good at failure and excuses. The only thing they have mastered.

This will be Cameron's Iraq. But then again he is handing over to Gideon and wants to be remembered like Blair.

I said after the no vote. That Scotland would get dragged into an illegal war in Syria. People on the no side didn't think it would happen and it just did. This will drag on for years and terrorism will continue. The mistake will be learned too late to change course.

So David your conclusion or should I say concussion is that we let the nutters kill us and do nothing about it. We all convert tae islam and they will stop killing us. Good logic David you are held highly in the esteem of me and all other people that do not want tae kneel on carpets five times a day. You are the Guro. I worship you.

James - I think that I heard Stewart Hosie telling the BBC this evening that polls suggested that 72% of Scots opposed the proposed bombing. Do you have any idea as to what polls he was referring to (if indeed I didn't mishear what he said)? Thanks

I see that the very respected, independent military experts in Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) just demolished Cameron's 70,000 "friendly troops" fantasy, on Newsnight.

That didn't take long.

Without reliable ground troops to back up the air-strikes, ISIL will NEVER be defeated - as pointed out by the SNP and most of the Labour Party.

Cameron's plan is already beginning to unravel, only a few hours after the Vote.

What imbeciles like McGibbon fail to understand, is that there is a world of difference between taking EFFECTIVE action against those ISIL zoomers - and doing something, just for the sake of doing something.

Stopping the financial flow which allow them to buy arms and ammo, disrupting their propaganda internet sites,stopping Assad and Turkey buying their oil and getting a CREDIBLE ground-force together, to take territory away from them and dramatically increasing diplomatic efforts against them, would be effective.

Chucking a few more bombs into Raqqa and probably killing more innocents than terrorists, is not.

Cameron will now suffer for anything which goes wrong - and it will not be long before something does.

I saw that demolition of the 70,000 troops fantasy too. What struck me was, even if there actually are 70,000 'moderate' troops on the ground in Syria, most of them appear to be in the West of Syria, nowhere near where ISIS mainly operate. I doubt even a single one would be prepared to traipse across Syria at the request of Cameron or Obama, especially since they are fully engaged defending the areas they do control. Oh and if they did get up and move Putin would probably bomb them when they did.

The reality is that the only possible effective ground troops in the region are the Kurds. The Kurds who we can't arm properly because it'd upset Turkey, and whom Turkey are actively bombing.

I have been a reader - as opposed to contributor - of your column, James for a long while now and I regret to say that enough is enough. This GWC person, the urchin who swings dead cats shouting "look at me, look at me, I am somebody" has put the tin lid on it as far as I'm concerned. He has brought nothing of substance to any debate and is determined to continue in that vein.

"The idea that has been doing the rounds in the London media that Hilary Benn is a credible caretaker "unity" Labour leader is now dead in the water. Becoming so visibly the darling of the Tory benches has completely put paid to any hopes he may have harboured in that direction."

The westminster bubble is nothing if not predictable in their unerring ability to get it wrong, over and over and over again. Which is apt since so many of them are Blarites looking to make a quick buck in the media with a proven track record of getting it utterly wrong and learning nothing from their mistakes.

Speaking of which, it's the "so visibly" part of that which you nailed James. You have to laugh precisely because it is so tragic and nobody provides more laughs than the tory party when they totally misjudge something like they did last night.

If you'll forgive the language James, the sheer unbridled glee and rapturous delight with which the nasty party received Benn's Blarite preaching looked absolutely fucking AWFUL.

Even the BBC have hastily cut the volume and cut the 'follow through' after Benn finishes in most of their reports precisely because this was supposed to be the most serious and grave matter of life and death in parliament.

Yet the tory benches were full to the brim with public school twits who simply could not help themselves. They erupted into ecstatic hooting like gibbons as they clapped so furiously that their little faces shined and beamed red with the effort.

To be fair it was SO bloody obvious that the whips had told them to do so. (like all the times they were told to cheer Blair to the rafters to try and undermine Brown) And it went down so well with the right-wingers precisely because, just like with Blair, the vapid infantile nature of Benn's 'fascists baaad!' coupled with his laughably simplistic appeal to nostalgia was exactly what they had been waiting to hear anyway.

My god, you can't seriously expect most tory MPs or Bairites to think through the consequences and ramifications of getting involved in one of the most hideously complex, multi-faceted and intractable civil wars on the planet?? Come on!! They are hardly going to want to hear that their actions might have serious consequences down the line. They were getting more and more upset as the day went on exactly for that reason as it is simply impossible to have any kind of lengthy debate on Syria without someone pointing out the rather inconvenient fact that all the international players and forces already in play in Syria make it one of the least appropriate situations for the kind of childish oversimplifications that the Blairites and tories love.

So the inept CCHQ 'stagecraft' backfired as it usually does with the end result being poor old Hilary Benn blinking owlishly as he sat down wondering if the deafening wall of noise and adulation coming from the tories might indicate his Blairite wheeze to have a jolly good pop at Corbyn not actually have been that great an idea after all. No Hilary, I'm afraid it wasn't, to put it mildly. LOL

Doesn't matter what the westminster chattering classes say about Benn's speech. As we all know their cluelessness is matched only by their stupendous ability to be wildly out of touch.

What matters is that the excitable twits on the tory benches have made absolutely certain no labour MP can ever think of Benn, now or for the foreseeable future, without picturing and hearing (because what some don't realise is that inside the commons itself the noise is FAR louder) that tory ecstasy, hooting, clapping and adulation.

Make no mistake, there are some real dumb labour MPs but even the dumbest of them must know that rabidly partisan tory MPs might, juuust might, not be the kind of people who are likely to vote for them in an election.

What we've learned tonight: That a sizeable portion of Scottish and British society is not prepared to stand up and defend our people and our civilisation. As one caller on LBC put it last night "they could be sailing up our estuaries and these people would still be wringing their hands at the thought of combat". Absolutely spot on - and to avoid that dire situation arising we need to nip our enemies in the bud. These airstrikes are already about 18 months late.

It was amusing reading Facebook and internet / social media in general this morning. The SNP and a good chunk of the left seem to have gone quite hysterical - as if the dreaded "brown envelope" of generations past had just popped through the door. Very surreal!

Is he? Really? How? Do you actually know what his strategy is? Does anyone really believe that these bombings will make us safer in any way? If each bomb costs £100,000, we could pay for two full-time intelligence officers for a year to track down terrorists right here in Britain. That would make ME feel safer. Don't forget - we've been bombing ISIS in Iraq for 18 months. Others have been bombing in Syria for 14 months. The French men who attacked Paris don't seem to have been hindered one bit, while the number of attempted attacks we've heard about in Britain has risen. So what are actually trying to achieve? What's the timescale? How will we know we've "won"? Hell, how will we know if we've *lost*?

Being upset about Paris is not a justification for mindless posturing and burning money over Raqqa.

The Kurds, who are fighting and dying against ISIS on the ground in a brutal conflict, want us to strike them.

The French want us to strike them.

And despite public posturing, the Russians will be delighted we are striking them.

This evil mob of murderers, rapists, and thugs called ISIS will have to, sooner or later, be taken out militarily. That is the lesson that the Algerian government learned in the 1990's, when nobody batted an eyelid as 100,000 people died in a vicious struggle with Islamists.

We either see ISIS down now, or they'll see us down. It's as simple as that.

Aldo, here's the problem with your pathetic little strawman: it all rests on the idea that these airstrikes will actually do a damned thing to stop IS, when the actual evidence suggests otherwise. The US, Canada, Australia, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar have ALL participated in air strikes over the past few years. IS is still there. Are we expected to believe the UK's meagre couple of token planes will be the straw that broke the camel's back?

A study of terrorist groups found that since 1963, 263 have been sufficiently reduced to a state that can be considered "destroyed," not including splinters or factionalisation. How many of them were deemed to have been destroyed by military force? 20. That's 7%. In contrast, 10% of terrorist groups dissolved after achieving victory.

There are several actions the UK could take aren't restricted to military interventions: crack down on IS internet communications, freezing their oil and gas sales to choke their financial funding, aid local forces like the Kurds, old-fashioned politics and peace talks - all of which could cripple IS without directly dropping bombs on civilians. Yet the UK government seems resolutely uninterested in pursuing these actions to any real degree: why is that?

Meanwhile, foreign ships from countries we aren't particularly friendly with *are* practically sailing up our estuaries. Where was the mighty UK navy when Russian ships entered Scottish waters on no less than two occasions in the past few years? Where was the dauntless ultimatum from Cameron demanding the Russians stop sending their bombers into UK airspace? Where was this heroic defense of our civilisation when Russia walked all over us like they owned the place? If I didn't know better, I'd almost say the UK government doesn't actually care about protecting the UK at all. Our pitiful maritime presence meant we had to send up a ship from PORTSMOUTH to intercept the Russian ships. Our airforce has been gutted to the point where the Russians could do what they like in our airspace. And our armed forces are spread thinly enough as it is after the job cuts and funding reductions.

But at least we have Trident, eh?

I'm against the airstrikes and military intervention on principle, but I would at least respect a military strategy that looked like it would be successful in its stated goals. Air strikes will neither destroy IS, nor will they bring any peace to Syria, nor will they make Britain any safer - indeed, the evidence suggests they will actually achieve the opposite of those aims. Much like Trident, it isn't just the morality that offends me - it's that it doesn't even succeed in its intended purpose.

Hearing that some Labour MPs decided to vote for Bombing after they heard Hilary's speech made me think of court cases where the innocent is found guilty because the prosecution Lawyer is a better actor and presenter than the defence lawyer. Justice is served. AYE RIGHT!!!

There's been lots of mocking of Labour from Tories and SNP supporters over this issue, but I honestly don't see why a party voting unanimously for or against a position on a controversial topic like this is seen as a healthy thing for democracy.

This issue cuts across left/right lines. There's no unity in the country on what should be done and if we actually had grassroots politics (not top down politics dressed up as being grassroots, which is precisely what the SNP offer) we should expect parties to be divided on it. Labour is still a long way off being a grassroots party, but if Corbyn can move it there he'll be able to offer something none of the other parties can, except perhaps the Greens.

But that's just silly. I mean, people join the SNP in part because it's avowedly anti-nuclear and always has been. Those people are likely to be significantly less bellicose than members of other parties. They also had a strong platform against the Iraq conflict, not least because they foresaw chaos. That issue in particular was one that turned a lot of Scottish Labour voters into SNP voters (and members!) Also, the SNP is clearly a more leftist party than Labour now and people on the left tend to be more suspicious of the motives for war than those on the right (like the Tories or Hilary Benn, for example.) And it's also a much smaller parliamentary group, so the likelihood of unanimity is a little higher anyway. On top of all of that, yes, one or two might hold private opinions that differ from the party line but they understand the concept of a whipped vote and recognise their role as an *opposition* party, and that therefore their actual job is to provide a counterpoint to government policy. Does anyone think that if the SNP had allowed a free vote and a few had voted in favour of war, the media line wouldn't be "SNP riven by division over Syria"? It's a pathetically weak stick to beat the SNP with. So stop it.

Kenny: The level of defensiveness in your reply is fairly indicative of the problem you're trying to dismiss.

The point is that if we want grassroots politics we should expect MPs/MSPs within the same party to disagree on a regular basis. Labour is far from a grassroots party at present, but the idea that we should throw our hands up in horror at the idea they aren't united on this issue (or Trident) is making a virtue out of a problem. Parties that are united with rigid discipline on almost every issue aren't a good thing for democracy - and the SNP are merely one of the worst examples of that (the Tories are barely any better outside of the Europe issue).

So what you are saying Ralf is that if I want to vote for a party that doesn't have a consistent view / will vote unpredictably on 'controversial' topics that are important to me, I should vote Labour and just hope enough of them go with my view?

Are you likewise proposing Labour no longer have manifestos for elections? That's truly a new approach! Certainly, if they do have manifestos and work firmly to implement policies they put in said manifestos that would be a 'top down rigid' approach as you say; something you believe they should not do.

Personally, I prefer a party to debate internally, come to a collective agreement, then put that proposal to the electorate in manifestos. Then I know what I'm voting for, and that they'll try and implement that if elected.

Nice gesture to the French James who are facing fascists once again. I feel ashamed for Scotland. Our MPs have stabbed the French in the back. They will not forget it if our hour of need ever arrives. I will write to the French Consulate and express my regret that our MPs are sheep in wolves clothing.

Aldo. It is clear that history is not being taught in our schools. Mosley who supported Adolf and the British Commies who supported Uncle Joe Stalin did not happen. The English bombed Clydebank not the Luftwaffe.You know those dinasaur footprints found on Skye they were probably ex Nats, small brain big feet. Some probably think the world began when the baby jesus was allegedyborn.... We need tae keep arguing for the Union we cannot let the dinasaur party rule us.

Nothing wrong with my sense of humour. SNP membership would appear to be a radical step for someone who perceives the SNP as Nazis, though. You appear to be as confused on this as you are on every other point you attempt to make.

Turns out that the westminster bubble media and all those fawning adoring Blairites were pouring their adulation onto a liar.

I know, I know, what were the chances of that!! A bog-standard Blairite speech by someone who clearly wants to oust Corbyn being nothing more than a fake transparent tissue of lies and vapid bluster. It's simply UNTHINKABLE! LOL

Yet that's exactly what we got from Hilary Benn as the Rev Stu managed to expose his utterly incoherent and duplicitous stance in record time. (Though to be fair it's not as if he had to conduct a Watergate style investigation so lazy and incompetent have the westminster bubble media become)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/seventeen-days-later/

“Labour’s opposition to any British involvement in military action against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria has intensified, despite the massacre in Paris.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an ‘act of war’ – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response.

He said that the idea of British action against Isis in Syria should be put to one side until the country’s civil war had been brought to an end.

Mr Benn said the ‘terrible events in Paris’ meant it was ‘even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end’ before considering air strikes on Isis. He outlined his thinking:

‘Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war. Therefore I hope that the talks that are taking place really will redouble their efforts to say, look we’ve got a find a way of bringing this to a conclusion – we’ve got to bring this to an end. Because then, people can then really focus their efforts on the threat from Isil/Daesh and the circumstances in Syria will have changed.’

Mr Benn, who supports military intervention to protect civilians, said he did not think the Government was planning to come forward with a proposal to extend air strikes from Iraq into Syria.

But asked if he thought they should, Mr Benn said: ‘No.’ He added: ‘They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.'”

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh! :D

All this while the tories, Blairites and the BBC are working themselves into a frenzy over a few strongly worded tweets and the ludicrous idea that you can possibly question the motives or decisions of the westminster elite. Yes, REALLY!

Pure comedy Gold.

As I said with a touch of prescience last night..

"Point is Blair could have easily made that speech but there's a reason he can't any more without almost all of the public thinking LIAR!"

LOL

Tony will be getting worried at this rate as Hilary Benn seems well on his way to supplanting "the master". (As Hameron and Osbrowne call him) :D

Lots off blah blah Porkie but on the wrong side. And wee Nicola and the Dugdale failing to face up to fascists. Down with Islamic fascists and their apologists.Pandering too extremist murderers is not the Scottish way. Shame on you. Solidarity with France and Charlie Hebdo.

Anon. You are in the dustbin off history. Good people have learned the lesson from the Death Camps. Clearly you revel in IS atrocities by the fact you do not want to take action against them. And are you the same Anon fool that said Blair was responsible for the Paris attacks?

Hillary Benn is anti Islamic fascist the SNP are clearly not. Hillary Benn will never be Prime Minister. The next Labour leader is well known. The Scot Nat sis can never be trusted with our safety from religious nutters as they probably have a few in their ranks.Tony Blair was not resposible for the engineering faults on the Forth Rail Bridge.

I did not call anyone a Nazi unless they are. However that vote by your Nat si MPs may indicate that you lot have no problem with Islamic fascist headloppers. Shame on you. What a stab in the back to our French allies.